On Oct 21, 2006, at 9:37 AM, Charles Roper wrote:
On 21/10/06, Andy Mabbett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think the intention is that the raw markup of a uF be
human-readable first.
This is a good point; what, exactly, should be human readable
first? I always assumed it was the rendered
On Oct 21, 2006, at 9:58 AM, Charles Roper wrote:
Can anyone give any real *disadvantages* to using output compression?
If you do it right, none. Some browsers, like IE 5 and maybe 6, have
problems with compressed, cached JavaScript and other weird edge
cases. However, most HTTP servers
On 10/21/06, Charles Roper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can anyone give any real *disadvantages* to using output compression?
The choice to use compression is one of bandwidth vs. processing time.
I have personally had a bad experience with a cut-rate ISP who had
some sort of CPU-usage throttling
On Oct 19, 2006, at 9:57 PM, Christopher Rines wrote:
In my opinion amount is a really difficult one to abbreviate (or any
measure
for that matter) as it can be used to describe a lot of other things
for
which there is not yet a microformat but cur (for currency) is
interesting
as just off
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Christopher Rines
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
And yet we have geo.
I think comparing geo and sci, etc. is not a great example as I think
geo can be thought of as a well known abbreviation.
Yes, it clearly identifies rocks, to geologists ;-)
But seriously, do you
On 21/10/06, Andy Mabbett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And yet we have geo.
I think comparing geo and sci, etc. is not a great example as I think
geo can be thought of as a well known abbreviation.
Yes, it clearly identifies rocks, to geologists ;-)
But seriously, do you really think it's well
On 21/10/06, Kevin Marks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the broader point, assuming you use gzip when you care about size,
abbreviations don't save much, especially in the many-repeated case
discussed.
This is one of my primary arguments against using abbreviations. See
my original post:
In message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Charles
Roper [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Can anyone give any real *disadvantages* to using output compression?
Perhaps not - but is it always available to people? Not everyone manages
(or has access to the management of) the servers on which their content
resides.
I think this has been mentioned before, but I'll mention it again.
From http://microformats.org/wiki/geo:
geo is a 1:1 representation of the geo property in the vCard
standard (RFC2426 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2426.txt)) in XHTML
As you can see, the authors of the spec weren't the ones
On 20/10/06, Brian Suda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- the tricky thing is that there are no namespaces in Microformats,
so if you use cur, sure it is scopped to 'money', but it is now a
'reserved word' for all of microformats. As it was pointed out in a
previous message, then what happens to
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Charles Roper
[EMAIL PROTECTED] in addition to other things said:
Should bin, var, cult, etc., be written in full? (I think not, to
save bloating file sizes)
These abbreviations are absolutely fine within the very narrow domain of
biological nomenclature and
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Christopher Rines
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 10:45 PM
To: microformats-discuss@microformats.org
Subject: Re: [uf-discuss] Size considerations (or how to choose
abbreviations)
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Charles Roper
[EMAIL
Hey Mike,
This is an very good/interesting example...
In my opinion amount is a really difficult one to abbreviate (or any measure
for that matter) as it can be used to describe a lot of other things for
which there is not yet a microformat but cur (for currency) is interesting
as just off the
13 matches
Mail list logo
